User talk:theresNoTime

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.

12:02:28, 25 September 2015 review of submission by Jsantossacchi

• Jsantossacchi (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Peter Dallos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Samtar,

Can you please tell me what is wrong? I have put all refs to footnotes, and don't see what else might be necessary.

Joe

Macspaunday

I responded to your alert on my talk page. I hit the wrong link when reading the history on a phone screen. Thank you for catching it so quickly! - Macspaunday (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Macspaunday: No worries! It was only minor, only reverted quickly because Silk hadn't yet replied. samtar ^(msg) 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

@Samtar: Thank you again, though. I forget that Rollback is instant and I should be ultra careful on a phone! - Macspaunday (talk) 21:27, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

On User talk:Animal buttock

See his talk page. It's a G10 attack page I believe. I see why you reverted it as a snap judgement though, no problems. ~ NottNott talk|contrib 18:17, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit-Request

Hello User:samtar, User:75.108.94.227 suggested I contact you in regards to an edit-request that has been sitting in queue for awhile. Since I am COI problematic(?? is that the word), I need someone with a few spare moments to check Talk:NTA_(company)#Edit-Request.

If you have time, could you please give me a hand?Wscribner (talk) 17:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi there Wscribner! I've looked over that source and your suggested addition, it seems valid and noteworthy. I've added the content for you and marked your request as fulfilled. Well done for working with @75.108.94.227: and learning how to correctly contribute to an article with a vested interest. I hope you stick around and contribute some more! samtar ^(msg) 17:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help! I am working on being around for awhile, I think :) Wscribner (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Single-board computers talk help

Hey Samtar. You approved a major change via Talk:PC-on-a-stick to PC-on-a-stick. I have posted a request to Talk:Comparison_of_single-board_computers#PC_on_a_Stick_is_registered_trademark_of_Imation area asking for help migrating the existing content on PC-on-a-stick to somewhere but there are no replies from editors in that area...any thoughts on how I should approach this? I am hesitant to just replace all the current PC-on-a-stick content, even with approval, without doing the diligence to find the right home for the current content. Any suggestions appreciated. Leonnyan (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Re: Possible socks at AfD

I suspect puppetry as well, but I am counting the closing admin to take that likelihood into account.

If you notice offsite canvassing, or a likely puppetmaster, I would be interested in hearing about it. I have not spotted any obvious evidence, and lack the energy at this moment to start digging. As much as I enjoy reporting sockpuppets, I don't think Goy's edit will carry much weight in the AfD.

If I were arguing to delete the article, I might emphasize possible WP:BLP concerns, and perhaps another article Cuckservative more reasonably should merged into—perhaps RINO, or a new article on US conservative purity purges. / edg ☺ ☭ 20:24, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Hey guys, Goy here. My apologies if I stole any credence away from the debate, that was not my intention. I had an account here I last used in 2009, if that helps. I've been mostly interested in the topics related to the Cuckservative page, so I was negligent and didn't realize how shady my input must have looked. It wasn't my intention to discredit anyone with whom I agreed. I'll be happy to continue this discussion since I want to emphasize that there wasn't any sockpuppeting going on from my end. BigGoyForYou (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Self-creation cosmology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Self-creation cosmology. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for A. E. Sewell

Materialscientist (talk) 03:32, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Lake Tour & Travels

Its a clear case of G11 and G12 which is more serious than A7. Ayub407^talk 15:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Right you are Ayub407, thanks for getting rid of it :) samtar ^(msg) 15:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm seriously not awake today -_- samtar ^(msg) 15:54, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

It's okay :) Ayub407^talk 15:57, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Your comment at AIV

Reverts of obvious vandalism are exempt from 3RR. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:56, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Facepalm: NeilN remind me to make a list of glaringly obvious things like that which I should know... samtar ^(msg) 17:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Patrick Hennessy(Painter)

Hi Samtar Thank you for your offer of assistance in this matter.The issue in question is regarding a tag placed on the Patrick Hennessy(Painter) article last August by Ww2censor stating that the lead section "may not adequately summarize key points of it's contents" When I seen this tag I immediately worked on enlarging the lead section taking into account the structure/content and the overall size of the article.Yet Ww2censor refused repeatedly to remove the tag and more importantly refused to enter into any form of discussion(I do'nt have to engage with you etc)on the matter.Put simply if no one will tell me what I've done wrong,how can I fix it. I have spent a year researching and working on this project for the good of everyone and I believe the lead section looks, reads and is in balance with the rest of the article.snowpatrol 20:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)

Am I to take it that you have no opinion to offer in this matter?snowpatrol 19:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seascaper (talk • contribs)

Stop it

Dr Blofeld is lying about me having an image on my page that I do not have and hes implying horrible things about me by doing so. So pls do not remove my replies. I have a right to defend myself by telling the truth. Caden ^cool 21:45, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Apologies - my revert was solely to try to stop the discussion spinning out of control. People will start getting sanctioned in a minute, and I honestly don't want you getting blocked. I personally think closing that thread and starting a fresh AN/I about how that thread was handled would allow a more equal discussion. That being said, I'm not going to revert any more edits on that page today. I agree Blofeld should be sanctioned, along with some other editors there samtar ^(msg) 21:50, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you but I don't have the energy to file another report. Why bother if i even had the energy. i'll just be attacked and bullied and lied about just like always by the same group of people on here. This place is horrible. Nothing is fair. Nothing is right. Nobody it seems likes me. I dont even know why i bother editing anymore. Caden ^cool 21:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

@Caden: I'm honestly sorry you've had this experience - not everyone here is bad :( samtar ^(msg) 22:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I know there are some good people like you but there just isnt enough around. This site is not a good place. And i really feel nobody likes me at all. Caden ^cool 22:18, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gunwalloe

The article Gunwalloe you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gunwalloe for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jakec -- Jakec (talk) 03:42, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of custom Android firmware. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Fraternity edit..

You are correct in that there are secondary sources, but do you really think four different sources say exactly the same thing, especially in a definition sentence? And three sites for the next sentence? I'd say there's now a SYNTH problem where these sources are being used to support what the author wants to say instead of what the sources say. I'm going to revert it again for that reason. MSJapan (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world and winter coming, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 05:47, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Well thank you SwisterTwister! How're you doing? samtar ^{t} 07:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Good thanks, hoping to alleviate some drama around here with tea. SwisterTwister talk 16:28, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Tea..fire hose... Either works! (I prefer the tea though!) samtar ^{t} 16:34, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Vani Hari

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Vani Hari. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Zyklon B Source reliability

Hi Samatar,

I just recently posted an edit to the page Zyklon B, saying that source no. 18 "Hitler's Willing Executioners" is an unreliable source, as it is not neutral, not peer-reviewed, and the information is contested by other prominent historians, saying the work is "totally wrong about everything" and "worthless". Therefore it is an unreliable source. Do you have a reason as to removing the edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talk • contribs) 16:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion taking place on the article's talk page before bothering me. It doesn't take much to work out what a user named "TrueHistory39" is going to try to achieve by discrediting facts to do with the Holocaust. samtar ^{t} 16:41, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

That is extremely rude and unhelpful. I am stating that the source is unreliable and providing reasons why it is simply not a good source, and you are getting emotionally involved. I will have to seek external mediation if you are going to not give a reason for removing your my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TrueHistory39 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Reason: Your concerns have been addressed on the article's talk page. Please do not make edits against consensus. I apologise if you found my response rude. Happy editing. samtar ^{t} 16:50, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

s/editing/being blocked. Next time try harder TrueHistory39! samtar ^{t} 16:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day	Quality	Title	Content	Headings	Images	Links	Sources	Tagged with…
164		Chess960 (talk)						Add sources
208		Exeter City F.C. (talk)						Add sources
175		Peoria, Arizona (talk)						Add sources
6		Grade–Ruan (talk)						Add sources
579		Direct marketing (talk)						Add sources
76		Ren'Py (talk)						Add sources
43		Bhandup (talk)						Cleanup
1		Lead validation (talk)						Cleanup
24		Chaudhry Muhammad Barjees Tahir (talk)						Cleanup
2,786		Palpatine (talk)						Expand
35		Photokina (talk)						Expand
189		Marketing ethics (talk)						Expand
1,361		Digital marketing (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
2,639		Somalia (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
479		Email marketing (talk)						Unencyclopaedic
71		Advertising mail (talk)						Merge
5		Khaplu Valley (talk)						Merge
4		Hiyoshi Shrine (talk)						Merge
42		Ideal World (talk)						Wikify
747		Below the line (advertising) (talk)						Wikify
103		Gabriel Knight (talk)						Wikify
16		Coronado, Panama (talk)						Orphan
17		Dialogue marketing (talk)						Orphan
3		Larik (talk)						Orphan
4		Gopalapatnam (talk)						Stub
9,979		Shaandaar (talk)						Stub
144		Umbrella brand (talk)						Stub
267		Niti Taylor (talk)						Stub
2		Tettenhall Wightwick (ward) (talk)						Stub
18		Qadariyah (talk)						Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

---

Hello Samtar:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

--Rubbish computer (Trick: or treat?) 17:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please remove warning notice from my talk page

• There are some more sources and links related with article Visa requirements for Australian citizens under Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents being added, i strongly believe that those links are Verifiable and you may review it, if you do believe those cites sources are Verifiable enough and if also your own research reveal that other sources mentioned that those 90 Days and 70 Days entrance valid permit policies are really true then " Please please come and remove the Block warning notice on my page, I request" I sincerely added some words in article as i know for sure as true and i myself obtained such types of entry permits already 90 Days for 8 times and 70 Days for some times.

But i do believe wiki users still have rights to put some more cites sources in article's talk page, even though if they no longer Edit on that "specific main article" if other Editor disagreed to alter, "Correct me if it should and those rights to put more and more reliable sources on article's talk Page are wrong to do that even though main article is in " intact" " to prove it.

Those +101 added i don't have any bad intention but sincere and those infos are truths, yet those are not actually unsourced contents but Government websites are legit enough to verifiable.

When someone comes to accuse another in Admin noticeboard due to they have on disputes each other then those accuses may not be always true, sometimes caused by misunderstood of another's intention or one user may still be wrong in views no matter either accuser or defendant, "treatment should be fair and equal no matter accuser or defendant". When one get accused , doesn't always mean he is an actual bad Editor. " Everyone learn to correct to be better from their mistakes to improve in life."

"If you do find those 90 Days and 70 Days permits are really true then you may edit back -101 the reversal on main article but "not me" please. "

"This is the Request"

Myo007 (talk) 22:27, 01 Novenmber 2015 (UTC)

The warning is valid and I will not remove it. However, you are welcome to remove it samtar ^{t} 11:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you please review the 90 Days, 70 Days policies to verify if there some may be useful for update article by up-to-date Law? Myo007 (talk) 22:54, 01 Novenmber 2015 (UTC)

Do i still have permission to add more links and writings in that argued article's (on talk page only) to prove more Cites from sources? May I? Myo007 (talk) 23:00, 01 Novenmber 2015 (UTC)